Creates a project folder with an empty project.json, assets, voice, and script.md in the workspace projects directory, so edits start from the workspace's library, rules, and keys.
Create a project folder with an empty project.json (no tracks yet), assets/, voice/ and script.md. Put it in /projects/ to get the workspace's library, rules and keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the created artifacts and that project.json starts with no tracks, plus the workspace inheritance behavior, but it does not address overwrite behavior, existing folders, permissions, errors, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero wasted text. The core creation behavior is front-loaded, and the path/workspace-inheritance guidance follows efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core folder structure and workspace integration well. However, it is incomplete regarding parameter meanings, overwrite/existing-folder behavior, and error/return semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters. The description only implicitly identifies the required project name via <workspace>/projects/<name>; it says nothing about the title or profile parameters, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: create a project folder, and enumerates what is created inside it (project.json, assets/, voice/, script.md). It does not explicitly distinguish this from any sibling tool, though no sibling appears to be a direct alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear usage context by saying to place the project in <workspace>/projects/<name> to inherit the workspace's library, rules and keys. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the positive path guidance is concrete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.